Karnataka High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director vs Sri. K.S. Krishnan on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.591 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE:
15/1, CUBBON ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
RERPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDTIONAL GENERAL MANAGER-HR
SRI. SUJIT BHATTACHARYA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K.S. KRISHNAN
S/O LATE SRI. K. SESHAN
AGED 62 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
ANAGHA F-20, VISTHARA ENCLAVE
VILANGUDI, PARAVAI MADURAI
TAMIL NADU-625 402
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
S-HIG-C1/4
KHB APARTMENT
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENT
-
2
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATHAN V.R., ADVOCATE A/W.
SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL,
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED
14.03.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No.20555/2022 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20555/2022 (S- RES).
2. We have heard Shri. Syed Kashif Ali, learned counsel for Shri. Pradeep. S. Sawarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. Raghunathan V.R, learned counsel along with Shri. Rudrappa. P, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
-
3
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Officers of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited ('HAL' for short) are governed by HAL Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules ('CDA Rules' for short). The respondent was appointed as Assistant Systems Audit Officer at Bengaluru on 24.01.1986 and was due to attain the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022. He later worked in the Finance Department and on 27.10.2021, he was transferred to Lucknow as General Manager (Finance). It was alleged that he had indulged in certain acts of omission and commissions in sending pseudonymous emails to Government Authorities making baseless allegations about the policy decision taken by the Board of Directors to malign its reputation. CD's containing adult sexual content was seized from his official vehicle on 01.10.2021.
4. The Managing Director issued Charge Sheet dated 22.11.2021 under Rules 4 and 5 of the CDA Rules. The respondent denied the allegations in his reply dated 15.12.2021. An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer during which the respondent cross-examined
-
4 witnesses but did not adduce any defence evidence. The Enquiry Officer on 27.05.2022 found that all the three charges leveled in the Charge Sheet were proved. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the Board of Directors on recommendation of the Management Committee on 11.07.2022 imposed punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 31.05.2022 - the date of his superannuation and the same was communicated to the respondent on 15.07.2022.
5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority - Board of Directors under Rule 14 which was rejected on 22.11.2022. In the meantime, on 12.10.2022 respondent filed Writ Petition No.20555/2022 seeking quashing of the dismissal order, restoration of post- retirement medical and pension coverage and refund of amounts recovered from his terminal benefits. The appellant filed his statement of objections justifying its action pointing out that the enquiry has been held in accordance with the procedure under the Rules.
-
5
6. The learned Single Judge observed that even assuming the e-mails were sent by the petitioner, such acts could not constitute misconduct under Rule 5(xii) of the CDA Rules and lodging complaints about maladministration to the Government, which owns the Company, cannot be treated as misconduct. If a representation does not relate to any grievance which is personal to the employee, the question of applying the said rule and terming it as misconduct would not arise. A grievance petition can only be personal, while a complaint regarding maladministration can never amount to grievance. It was also observed that the CD's found in the boot of a car hired for the petitioner's official use, no presumption could be drawn that they belonged to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the recommendation for dismissal was made when the complaints were clearly against their own conduct, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the entire proceedings were vitiated by blatant bias. It was also observed that the allegations neither affected the discharge of the petitioner's duties nor caused any loss to HAL and the punishment of dismissal,
-
6 after the petitioner had already attained superannuation was disproportionate. The fact that the extreme punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner is not only shocking but also indicated an absolute sense of vindictiveness on the part of the Board. The Writ Petition was allowed and the dismissal order dated 15.07.2022, the enquiry report dated 27.05.2022 and its affirmation in the appeal was set aside. The learned Single Judge directed the respondent - HAL to restore all service benefits with interest at 6% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs for the unacceptable harassment caused to the petitioner.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the allegations in the Charge Sheet did not constitute misconduct under Rules 4 and 5 of the CDA Rules. No such plea was raised by the respondent in the in the writ petition. The allegations relate to sending unsubstantiated false complaints against Company policy to the Cabinet Secretary and carrying CDs with sexual content in the
-
7 official car. Both acts fall under the scope of misconduct under the CDA Rules.
8. The respondent denied the charges claiming his email account was hacked. However, the enquiry established that the emails were sent by the respondent. Once proved, the burden shifted to the respondent to justify the allegations, which he failed to do. No evidence was produced to substantiate hacking or to claim protection as a whistle- blower. The learned Single Judge's finding that the respondent should be treated as a whistle-blower is erroneous, as no such plea was taken and HAL had a specific whistle-blower policy which was not invoked by the respondent. The finding of the learned Single Judge that an employee has a right to complain against maladministration to the Government and that such a conduct cannot be constructed as misconduct for taking disciplinary action against the employee is contrary to the rules and conduct expected of an employee.
9. With regard to the seizure of CDs, the learned Single Judge wrongly held that the charge was unproved
-
8 because the driver was not examined. Recovery of the CDs was admitted and the burden was on the respondent to explain their presence.
10. As per CDA Rules, the Management Committee is the disciplinary authority for Grade-IX and X officers and its decision was further approved by the Board of Directors. Being the disciplinary authority, it is legally permissible for the management committee to order for enquiry, consider the report of the Enquiry officer. Upon acceptance of the enquiry report, it is also open to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the imposition of punishment. No allegation of bias was pleaded by the respondent and the finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard is misconceived.
11. The punishment imposed was based on the gravity of proved charges and cannot be termed vindictive or shocking. The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and the learned Single Judge exceeded such jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting his own conclusions. The allegations contained in the charge sheet have been duly
-
9 held to be proved in a properly constituted enquiry. Initiating disciplinary action as per Rules when an allegation, which may amount to misconduct is reported against the delinquent, can never be termed as harassment. The finding thereon or the subsequent imposition of punishment by the Competent Authority would not classify to be termed as harassment.
12. In support of the contention that the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence by interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749; Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 - where it was held that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 266 and 227 of the Constitution, cannot function as a second appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings. The Court shall not re-appreciate evidence, go into adequacy or reliability of the evidence and
-
10 correct the factual error, however grave it may appear. Interference with the punishment imposed is limited and permissible only if it shocks the conscience of the Court. Once the disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report and the Central Administrative Tribunal has upheld it, the High Court has no scope to re-examine the evidence or substitute its own view.
13. The learned counsel has also relied on the following decisions in:-
M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation reported in (1998) 3 SCC 732- it was held that making public statements by an employee against the head of the organization on a political issue amounted to lowering the prestige of the organization and the employer was entitled to take disciplinary action as per the rules.
Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and Others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565- The acts and conduct of employees working in public offices should be in discharge of that constitutional objective and if
-
11 they derelict in the performance of their duty, it impinges upon the enforcement of the constitutional philosophy, objective and the goals under the rule of law. Disciplinary measures should, therefore aim to eradicate the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in the public offices.
Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 106- mere participation of members in meeting forming prima facie opinion to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot lead to interference of institutional bias against them nor is it desirable to appoint outsiders to hold disciplinary proceedings on such ground for interference. There must exist a real danger of bias. Though such domestic inquiries have undoubtedly to be fair, said principle cannot be extended to form a disciplinary committee by outsiders.
14. Further, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions in:-
• State of U.P v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 276;
-
12 • H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 639;
• State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K.Sharma reported in (1996)3 SCC 364; and • Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31.
15. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the enquiry officer conducted proceedings in a manner that denied the respondent a reasonable opportunity, to substantiate his defense. Inadequacy of time to prepare for cross- examination, the reliance placed on, incomplete, anonymous emails forwarded by the Ministry vitiated the proceedings. Further, the management witnesses failed to depose, instead submitted pre-printed statements and the enquiry officer's findings declaring charges proved did not reflect the realities of the case. The respondent emphasizes that the onus of proving charges lies with the management, not the employee and the enquiry was fundamentally flawed.
-
13
16. HAL being a Public Sector Undertaking failed to follow the Central Vigilance Commission ('CVC' for short) guidelines which clearly state that anonymous complaints should not be acted upon. HAL did not clarify before the learned Single Judge or this Court whether it responded to the Ministry of Defence's queries about the anonymous emails, nor did it attempt to identify who had accessed the respondent's IP address. Further, HAL, ignored the jurisdictional police's advice to refer the matter to a Court, refused to share CCTV coverage of the parking area where the official car was parked and failed to examine key witnesses such as the driver of the car in which the alleged CDs were recovered. The respondent insists these CDs were planted by the Management, pointing to the absence of CCTV evidence.
17. It is further contended that the appellant's attempt to portray him as a whistle-blower is misleading. At no stage did the respondent claim such status and the failure to label himself as such cannot weaken his legitimate defense. Every citizen has the right to complain against
-
14 wrongdoing and making allegations about maladministration or appointment of directors and the same cannot amount to misconduct. The onus to prove misconduct lay entirely with HAL yet crucial evidence was withheld and the proceedings were biased. The learned Single Judge recognized these glaring gaps and passed a well reasoned judgment. The Management's continued attempt to tarnish the respondent's image even after retirement reflects malice and bias, which the learned Single Judge rightly rejected.
18. We have considered the contentions advanced. The writ petition had been filed by the respondent herein challenging Annexure 'F' order dated 15.07.2022, by which the petitioner's services were terminated. The writ petitioner had specifically challenged the manner of the conduct of the enquiry as also the findings of guilt in the enquiry report on the ground that the proceedings were in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and were conducted with the pre-meditated intention of inflicting punishment on him. The detailed objections were placed on record by the respondent in the writ petition. The contentions raised on either side
-
15 were considered by the learned Single Judge. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel by the appellant herein, with regard to the limitations on the power of judicial review were also specifically considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge found that the provisions relied on by the appellant, that is, sub-clause (xii) and (xiii) of Rule 5 of CDA Rules with regard to making representations or grievance petitions to Government Members of Board etc, were not applicable to the facts available in the instant case. The circulars issued by the Central Government and the CVC with regard to submission of complaints as a whistle blower and the provisions of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 were also taken into account. After a full examination of the pleadings and the materials on record including the enquiry report, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion on fact that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated only as a means of retaliation as against the writ petitioner and that the entire proceedings were vitiated by non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and by clear institutional-bias.
-
16
19. Having considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and having given our anxious consideration to the decisions on the point, we are of the opinion that the contention of the appellant that the Constitutional Courts should not attempt an exercise of re-appreciation of the evidence adduced in disciplinary proceedings and should not act as appellate authorities have no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The learned Single Judge has considered the procedural lapses and the modest of conduct of the enquiry and has come to a definite conclusion that the findings in the enquiry report that the allegations raised against the writ petitioner's stand prove were not supported by any sustainable evidence. It was also found that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved in the enquiry. It is in the above circumstances that the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was unsustainable.
20. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner was specifically that he had raised specific
-
17 allegations against the directors and higher officials of the employer. It was after considering the factual aspects of the matter that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner was vitiated. In such a case, we are clearly of the opinion that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would have no application.
21. We are of the opinion that the findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is not a fit case for interference in an intra-Court appeal. The writ appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*